News Analysis

Toronto, Canada: As Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney races to make the country less dependent on the United States, attract billions in new investment and get major projects built faster, his economic overhaul is running into resistance from a group that says it wants many of the same things: organised labour.

The latest clash, over the right to strike, comes after months of mounting pressure on Ottawa from Washington, DC.

US President Donald Trump, since taking up a second term in office last year, has imposed steep tariffs on Canadian goods and weakened trade agreements – perilous moves as Canada has historically sent close to 80 percent of its exports to its southern neighbour. He has repeatedly piled on with the tariff threats to make Canada the 51st US state.

Canada has responded with retaliatory tariffs, while a broader movement to “Buy Canadian” has taken hold. The hockey-inspired “elbows up” — meaning a readiness to defend against an opponent — has become a national rallying cry.

With trade talks stalled since August, Carney has moved with urgency to shore up the economy and invite new investments. Last month, he announced Bill C-39, known as the Building Canada Strong Act, promising to bring “speed, certainty and predictability” to investors.

Along with measures to speed up approvals for major projects, the bill would also give Ottawa clearer powers to intervene in legal strikes and lockouts in federally regulated workplaces — a provision that has put Carney on a collision course with unions.

Canada’s largest unions have come together against the changes. The largest, the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE), had its national executive go as far as voting to defy the bill’s proposed limits on the right to strike if it passes Parliament without amendments.

CUPE National President Mark Hancock credited Carney’s handling of Trump and said the union’s 800,000 members, who work everywhere from hospitals to schools to municipal services, want to be part of “Team Canada”.

“But at what cost?” he said in an interview with Al Jazeera.

A fight over the right to strike

The controversy centres on Section 107 of the Canada Labour Code, which already gives the Labour Minister broad powers to step into disputes if needed to maintain “industrial peace”, end work stoppages and force the two sides into a binding arbitration.

Beginning in 2024, Ottawa used the provision eight times to intervene in disputes involving airlines, Canada’s two largest railways, three major ports and Canada Post and again during the Air Canada dispute in 2025 when flight attendants went on strike.

Unions have challenged the use of that law in court and had hoped the proposed C-39 would restrict, if not repeal, that clause while businesses wanted it strengthened.

The bill does neither. Instead, it introduces two conditions that the government would have to fulfil first before turning to Section 107.

Before stepping in, the government would have to appoint a special mediator, wait for a public report and consider whether a work stoppage is hurting the “national interest”.

Once a strike or lockout is underway, the minister could direct the Canada Industrial Relations Board to get operations running again and impose a binding process, such as arbitration.

The government says those steps put clearer guardrails around a power that already exists, and Carney has said the bill “absolutely reinforces the right to strike”, according to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.

Unions have rejected this defence, pointing out that the meaning of “national interest” would ultimately be decided by the minister. They also argue that the prospect of government intervention is bound to change what happens at the bargaining table.

“The political lesson that employers will draw from it is simple,” Larry Savage, a professor of labour studies at Brock University, told Al Jazeera. “Hold out long enough, emphasise the economic damage, and then Ottawa will remove the union’s leverage for you.”

Disruption, Savage said, is precisely what gives a strike its power. “Every effective strike is disruptive,” he said.

Unions say they have already seen employers expect Ottawa to intervene.

Teamsters Canada alleges the Canadian National Railway (CN) and the Canadian Pacific Kansas City (CPKC) railroad companies were counting on Ottawa to step in when they locked out thousands of workers in 2024. Section 107 was invoked within hours.

“Companies have gotten used to the idea that if there is a labour dispute, they can just wait for the government to intervene,” Christopher Monette, Teamsters Canada’s director of public affairs, told Al Jazeera.

CUPE said it saw a similar dynamic at Air Canada in August 2025. Hancock said bargaining stalled after more than 10,000 Air Canada flight attendants voted overwhelmingly to strike because the airline was “expecting the government of Canada to step in and end the strike” — an account Air Canada disputed.

Less than 12 hours after workers walked out, Ottawa invoked Section 107. Air Canada CEO Michael Rousseau later told BNN Bloomberg the airline had expected the provision to be enforced and did not expect a strike.

“That was why they didn’t have a strategy on how to deal with the strike,” Hancock said.

Building Canada faster

The fight over the right to strike is also part of a much bigger argument taking shape around Carney’s economic agenda: Who gets a say in how Canada should change, and how quickly, in the name of making itself less vulnerable to the US?

Critics accuse Carney of using the economic threat from the US to push through changes that go well beyond responding to Trump’s trade war.

New Democratic Party leader Avi Lewis has accused him of using the “fear and disorientation around the trade war to push through a series of unpopular measures that he did not run on, has no mandate for and would never get away with under normal circumstances”.

That tension was on display in Toronto just a week before C-39 was introduced. Inside Canada’s first national investment summit, hundreds of global investors met with government officials and executives as Carney pitched a country ready to build.

Outside, hundreds of protesters marched through downtown towards the summit’s opening gala under the banner “The Many vs The Money”. The rally brought together labour, Indigenous, environmental and migrant-rights groups, with signs and speeches taking aim at everything from fossil fuel and military projects to AI and the use of public money to attract private investment.

For unions, C-39 has sharpened that debate, pitting the government’s promise of greater certainty for investors against workers’ ability to exert pressure through strikes.

But Jim Stanford, an economist and director of the Vancouver-based Centre for Future Work, questions how much of an economic threat strikes actually pose.

While work stoppages can be costly for individual companies, Stanford said, “It is very, very rare that you would see a noticeable and sustained impact on GDP, employment or incomes.”

Production and transportation are often delayed rather than permanently lost, he added, with businesses catching up once work resumes.

Stanford also questioned the idea that strikes are driving away investment, noting that more than 95 percent of collective bargaining ends without a work stoppage and saying there is “no empirical evidence whatsoever” that strikes have reduced investment.

“This is more of the government giving some icing on the cake for business. It’s not that this has to happen or else our investment won’t work,” he said.

There is also an economic cost to weakening the right to strike, Stanford argued. Workers need bargaining power to win higher wages, which can support consumer spending, productivity and worker retention.

“It may seem like labour peace is a good thing, but if it means that a worker’s share of the pie shrinks, then this actually hurts the economy.”

For labour leaders, that’s where Carney’s economic push goes too far.

“Canada’s unions are part of Team Canada. We have our elbows up,” Canadian Labour Congress President Bea Bruske said in a statement. “But we can’t have our elbows up against Trump with our hands tied at the bargaining table.”

Savage said the government’s “Team Canada” rhetoric risks treating workers’ bargaining power as a national liability.

“I don’t think Canada becomes stronger by telling workers in ports or railways or airlines that their rights have to be surrendered whenever employers invoke competitiveness or the national interest,” he said.

United Kingdom police have arrested a 25-year-old British-Iranian man in relation to a security incident at a Royal Air Force (RAF) station near Fairford, England, this week

The man, described by police as a “dual UK/Iranian national” and detained on suspicion of preparing “terrorist” acts, is the sixth person to be arrested in what British authorities said was potentially an Iran-backed plot. The five other people arrested earlier were released on bail on Monday.

The investigation began when British authorities were alerted early on Sunday about unusual activity near the airbase, including oddly parked vans and a group of masked men. After searching the vans, authorities found no weapons or explosives but did recover a “quantity of petrol”.

The RAF station has been used by the United States for military operations, including by bombers during the US-Israel war on Iran.

Here’s what we know about the latest development in the case:

What’s happened?

British counterterrorism police announced the arrest of a 25-year-old British-Iranian dual national in Westminster, London, on Thursday. Iran, however, does not recognise dual citizenship, and treats Iranians with a second passport solely as Iranian.

The man was detained on “suspicion of preparation of terrorist acts under Section 5 of the Terrorism Act 2006”, the same offence cited in the arrests of the five other suspects. In line with standard police practice, none of the suspects has been named ahead of any charges being made.

Police said they also conducted searches of two properties in the London area. They appealed to the public for any information that could assist the investigation.

What do we know about the suspect in custody?

The Times newspaper reported that the British-Iranian suspect is being investigated as a possible “recruiter” in the still-opaque plot or as someone otherwise believed to have played a significant role.

The media reported that the man was placed under surveillance after the arrest of the first five men. He has not been named.

What evidence is there that this was an Iran-linked plot?

The UK has pointed to an Iranian connection but has so far kept the reason for that assessment under wraps.

On Wednesday, Prime Minister Andy Burnham said there are “strong indications” of Iran’s involvement in the incident and an “ongoing, complex and serious police investigation” is continuing.

He did not give information on what the suspects may have been planning or what intelligence has led the UK to suspect the involvement of Iran, saying only that he would “update people more in due course”.

In the US, President Donald Trump said the case “might be” Iran-linked and the US had been keeping tabs on the suspects “for a long time”. Trump criticised the UK’s decision to release the first five suspects on bail.

In Israel, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said his government had forewarned the UK about a potential “Iranian-sponsored attack” but did not specify if that was related to the same RAF base incident.

Iranian officials have firmly denied any connection to the incident. Deputy Foreign Minister for Political Affairs Majid Takht-Ravanch called the claims “false and ridiculous”.

Iran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs summoned British Ambassador Hugo Shorter on Thursday to protest against the allegations.

What happened at RAF Fairford?

Authorities received two early-morning calls on Sunday alerting them to suspicious activity near the Fairford airbase, including three vans parked strangely and a group of hooded, masked men.

Unusually, the first call to the UK’s emergency line was made by one of the suspects who would later be arrested.

Police responded and arrested five British men in their early 20s in the nearby Whelford area, saying they were suspected of explosives offences. Counterterrorism police later took over the investigation and said the men were suspected of preparing “a terrorist act”.

The suspects were released on bail on Monday but remained subject to “stringent conditions on their movement and contact with others”, according to the UK’s head of counterterrorism policing, Laurence Taylor.

After searching the vans located near the airbase, police said they found no explosives but did retrieve a “quantity of petrol”.

Why were the men arrested at the scene given bail if this is a major incident?

That’s one of the big unanswered questions.

Under British “counterterrorism” law, police may hold suspects for up to two weeks before charging them. However, if authorities find little evidence to support their initial suspicion of “terrorism”, they have far less time – usually 24 to 36 hours, Chris Phillips, a former head of the UK’s National Counter Terrorism Security Office, told Al Jazeera.

Other security experts told Al Jazeera that police likely released the first five suspects because they did not deem them to be an imminent security risk or found that their potential involvement in any plot was unwitting.

“In cases involving terrorism, suspects can still be released on bail when the authorities feel relatively confident that these individuals do not pose an imminent danger of either carrying out or organising a terrorist attack,” Andrew Silke, professor of criminology at Royal Holloway, University of London, told Al Jazeera.

“Individuals may have been involved unknowingly or in a peripheral manner to potential terrorist activity. This seems possible in the current case,” he added.

Afzal Ashraf, a visiting fellow in international relations and security at Loughborough University and a former senior RAF officer, agreed that police likely have assessed that the five released suspects do not pose “any immediate danger”.

“We can reasonably assume that police judged that these individuals did not present any immediate danger nor did they have any credible means or intention of creating further danger to the public or to government installations,” Ashraf told Al Jazeera.

However, he said their release on bail should not necessarily be taken to mean the incident in question “was minor or that the Iranian-involvement hypothesis has been rejected”.

What happens next?

British authorities said they are continuing to investigate all aspects of the case, including the possibility of it being a foreign-backed “plot”.

Silke said authorities will likely be thoroughly analysing all suspects’ communications and interactions, looking for information on contacts who may have organised their involvement and for any payment the suspects may have received.

“The authorities can investigate all of these links to establish if they lead back to foreign government sources or agencies,” he said.

Silke added that authorities will also look into any links between the RAF airbase incident and previous plots carried out on British soil.

Phillips said he believes the suspects could have been recruited online by foreign actors to carry out some type of malicious activity, such as “setting fire to something”.

He said both Russia and Iran have allegedly paid “stooges” to carry out such acts in recent years. “At first glance now, it seems that that may be the case, but time will tell,” Phillips added.

Iran and Russia have also previously been accused of orchestrating plots in the UK. Those plots have involved “surveillance, sabotage, arson or physical violence”, MI5 Director General Ken McCallum said last year.

Putin warned the West he would deploy nuclear weapons if necessary to defend the Russian Baltic exclave of Kaliningrad.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has ruled out a ceasefire on long-range strikes with Ukraine as Moscow steps up its campaign of aerial attacks on Kyiv.

“We are told: ‘Let them stop striking your refineries, and you will stop striking their ships.’ It is simply ridiculous,” Putin said on Thursday at the Valdai political forum in Moscow.

The remarks followed a meeting between United States President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in New York on September 22, when Zelenskyy said Kyiv was ready to cease strikes on Russian oil refineries and other energy facilities if Moscow also stopped its attacks on Ukrainian energy infrastructure.

Speaking at the forum of the Moscow-based think tank, Putin said Ukraine had “partially achieved its objectives” with ⁠these strikes, with attacks on Russian ⁠oil refineries having cost the country 1 percent of its gross domestic product (GDP), but added that Russia ⁠was now responding in kind.

Russia has ramped up long-range strikes, targeting Ukraine’s steel companies as well as supply chains, notably in the rail sector. Ukraine accuses Moscow of deliberately hitting civilian targets and keeping Kyiv on a near-constant state of alert as it braces for another tough winter.

A Russian drone struck a school in Kyiv on Thursday, according to city officials, as the Ukrainian capital endured relentless aerial attacks. No casualties were reported as children and staff at the school were in shelters when the drone hit.

Putin added that Russia would prefer to end the conflict in Ukraine through talks and wanted it to ⁠be a neutral ⁠country after the end ⁠of hostilities.

The nuclear option

He warned the West not to escalate the standoff over Ukraine by threatening the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad, which is wedged between Poland and Lithuania, and pledged to defend it with nuclear weapons if necessary.

“If it comes to a direct attack on the Russian Federation – in this case, we are referring to Kaliningrad, and perhaps other territories as well – the question of the Russian Federation deploying all the weapons at our country’s disposal will, of course, inevitably and immediately be on the agenda,” he said.

Putin’s comments followed a diplomatic note which NATO said this week it had received from Russia, warning the Western military alliance it would be ready to resort to nuclear weapons if NATO attempted to cut off Russia’s Baltic exclave.

Putin warned that cycles of escalation in international conflict ⁠could quickly lead to dangerous scenarios. “We must realise that the moment when nothing can be changed any longer may come very quickly and unexpectedly for everyone. The logic of escalating, increasingly harsh retaliatory measures leads to a fatal point of no return,” ⁠he said.

On the contrary, in the event of a “favourable scenario”, Putin said the assets of Western companies that Moscow had seized could potentially be returned. Putin last month ordered the seizure of businesses and assets of Swiss food giant Nestle, French retailer Auchan, the former Leroy Merlin DIY chain and German wholesaler and food retailer Metro.

British Prime Minister Andy Burnham has said the UK’s security services have “strong indications” of Iranian involvement in the incident at a British Royal Air Force (RAF) station near Fairford this week in which five men were arrested before they were released on bail.

The five British men were spotted near the airbase and arrested on Sunday on suspicion of “terrorism” and explosives offences, before they were released.

The United States has used the British base to carry out operations in various conflicts, including to deploy bombers in its war against Iran.

Iran has strongly denied any involvement with the airbase incident, with Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi saying British authorities are “barking up the wrong tree”.

So, what do we know about the incident, and is there evidence Iran played a role?

What happened at the airbase?

Authorities were alerted to suspicious activity near the base early Sunday morning, including three vans parked oddly and a group of hooded, masked men.

Police responded and arrested five British men in their early 20s in the nearby Whelford area, saying they were suspected of explosives offences. Counter Terrorism police later took over the probe and said the men were suspected of preparing “a terrorist act”.

The suspects were released on bail Monday, but remain subject to “stringent conditions on their movement and contact with others,” according to the United Kingdom’s head of counter terrorism policing, Laurence Taylor.

On Tuesday, after three days of investigations, including using a bomb disposal team, police said they had found no explosives in the vehicles that were parked the near the base, but had retrieved a “quantity of petrol”.

Who is linking the incident to Iran, and have they cited evidence?

Officials in the UK, the US and Israel have all pointed to Iran but offered no details.

Burnham on Wednesday spoke of “strong indications” of Iran’s involvement and said an “ongoing, complex and serious police investigation” is continuing.

However, the prime minister did not give any details on what the suspects were planning or why the UK thinks Iran was involved, saying only that he would “update people more in due course”.

In the US, President Donald Trump said the case “might be” Iran-linked and that the US had been keeping tabs on the suspects “for a long time”. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the case “clearly involved the hands of a foreign actor”, without naming a specific state.

In Israel, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Israel had forewarned the UK about a potential “Iranian-sponsored attack”.

How has Iran responded?

Iran has firmly denied involvement.

In a statement on Monday, Iran’s embassy in London said it “categorically rejects and strongly condemns” any attempts to link Iran to the individuals arrested near the airbase.

It said the spread of such “fabricated speculations” fuel “Iranophobia propaganda” and that Iran reserves the right to “take appropriate legal measures”.

On Wednesday, Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said the UK was “barking up the wrong tree” by pointing to potential Iranian involvement.

Why has the UK released the suspects on bail?

It is unclear. Under British “counterterrorism law”, police can hold suspects for up to two weeks before charging them. However, if authorities find little evidence to support their initial suspicion of “terrorism”, they would have far less time – usually 24 to 36 hours, said Chris Phillips, a former head of the UK’s National Counter Terrorism Security Office.

“If it’s not an actual terrorist attack, then the police don’t have anywhere near as long to keep them in custody,” said Phillips. “I think the police just need more time to do their enquiries.”

Andrew Silke, professor of criminology at Royal Holloway, University of London, said the suspects could have also been released on bail while under suspicion of “terrorism” if “authorities feel relatively confident that these individuals do not pose an imminent danger of either carrying out or organising a terrorist attack”, such as if they had “peripheral” or “unknowing involvement”.

Afzal Ashraf, a visiting fellow in international relations and security at Loughborough University and a former senior Royal Air Force officer, said the bail release does not necessarily indicate that the “Iranian-involvement hypothesis has been rejected” but it does mean “police have judged that these individuals did not present any immediate danger”.

Taylor, the head of counter terrorism policing, said the men’s release on bail was an “investigative decision” based on “experience and careful considerations of policing powers.” He stressed that the men are bound by “stringent conditions on their movement and contact with others” as the investigation into them continues.

But their release drew backlash in the US from Trump, who said British authorities “should not have done that”.

“How do you give bail to a terrorist?” Trump asked.

Iran’s Araghchi appeared to suggest that the suspects’ release supported Iran’s position that it was not involved.

“I can confirm Iran’s belief that releasing supposed terrorists working for foreign states really says it all,” wrote Araghchi in a post on X.

What questions about the case are still unanswered?

Questions remain about the circumstances in which authorities were initially alerted to suspicious activity near the base, the extent to which they believe the suspects are linked to Iran and what the suspects may have been planning.

According to the BBC, police received two early-morning calls on Sunday regarding suspicious vehicles near the base, the first of which the media understands was made by one of the suspects themselves.

The Times of London reported that police are looking into the suspect’s motives for making such a call, including “whether he got cold feet or whether it was part of the plan”.

Authorities are also probing whether the incident was a form of “surveillance, a ‘dry run’ to test security or a stunt to send a message to the British government”, reported The Times.

Meanwhile, police have suggested they are looking into whether the suspects could have been unwittingly acting on Iran’s behalf.

In an updated briefing on Tuesday, Taylor said officials were examining whether the activity could have been “committed by proxies, or individuals either knowingly or unknowingly, working on behalf of a foreign state”.

He also spoke more generally about the “increasing breadth and complexity” of threats facing the UK, saying threats often emerge first as small-scale criminal activity, “committed by individuals whose primary aim is not terrorism but a quick financial gain”.

Phillips told Al Jazeera he believes the suspects could have been recruited online to carry out some type of malicious activity that falls short of a “terrorist attack”.

“It sounds as though these people have been paid online to do some naughty work”, such as “setting fire to something”, said Phillips.

He said both Russia and Iran have allegedly paid “stooges” to carry out such acts in recent years. “At first glance now, it seems that that may be the case, but time will tell,” Phillips added.

Royal Holloway’s Silke also said he believes the evidence suggests “a proxy explanation”.

“Certainly, there have been recent cases in Europe where individuals have been used unwittingly as proxies by foreign governments to carry out activities which have a hostile intent,” he said. “The UK authorities in this case may have assessed that something similar had happened here, and that the individuals involved had no inherent terrorist motivation themselves, but had been caught up unintentionally in a larger plot.”

Has Iran previously been accused of plots in the UK?

Yes. MI5 Director General Ken McCallum said in October 2025 that the agency had tracked “more than 20 potentially lethal Iran-backed plots” in the UK within a year.

McCallum alleged that Iran, along with Russia, has resorted to “ugly methods,” such as “surveillance, sabotage, arson or physical violence”.

British Security Minister Dan Jarvis has said Iran often uses criminal proxies to “obfuscate” its involvement in attacks, which have targeted Iranian dissidents and Jewish and Israeli people in the country.

In March this year, British police arrested four people on suspicion of helping Iran spy on the local Jewish community. The month after, police said they were probing possible Iran links to a series of arson attacks on Jewish targets ‌in London.

In June, two Romanian men whom British prosecutors said had acted as proxies for Iran’s government were handed lengthy jail terms for stabbing a British journalist of Iranian origin who wrote for an Iranian media outlet critical of Iran’s government.

Iran’s government has repeatedly denied involvement in any illegal plots or attacks on British.

US president’s comments came after he was asked why North Korea can have nuclear weapons when Iran cannot.

United States President Donald Trump has described North Korean leader Kim Jong Un as “a friend” and played down concerns about Pyongyang’s nuclear arsenal, saying, “as long as I’m around, he’s going to be fine”.

Trump made the remarks in Washington, DC, on Tuesday after a reporter asked him why North Korea could have nuclear weapons but Iran could not.

“That’s interesting. You know why? Because you had a different president, and they could have stopped him,” he said, referring to previous US administrations.

“He happens to be a friend of mine, Kim Jong Un, he’s a friend of mine. He likes Trump, doesn’t like a lot of other people. I’m about the only person in the entire world that he likes, and I like him,” he said.

He said North Korea’s nuclear capacity was “pretty large” but “not like us”.

“You know what, as long as I’m around, he’s going to be fine,” he added. “You know why? Because he respects me and he likes me.”

South Korea’s Defence Minister Ahn Gyu-back said last week that its northern neighbour possessed between 80 and 120 nuclear warheads. The figure is significantly higher than Trump’s recent assertion that Pyongyang has 57 nuclear weapons.

Trump is seeking to re-engage with Kim and secure a win on the international stage as the US and Israel’s war on Iran enters its eighth month.

The US president launched the war along with Israel on February 28, saying Iran could not have a nuclear weapon. Iran has denied seeking a weapon, noting it had signed an agreement with world powers in 2015 that curbed its nuclear programme in exchange for sanctions relief. But Trump abandoned the agreement during his first term in 2018.

The US-Israel war on Iran has disrupted global energy supplies, raised fuel costs and hurt Trump’s popularity ahead of the November midterm elections.

Trump held summits with North Korea’s Kim in 2018 and 2019, but diplomacy broke down over US demands that Pyongyang give up its nuclear weapons. Since then, Kim has expanded his arsenal of nuclear-capable missiles and strengthened his diplomatic footprint by aligning with Russia over its war in Ukraine and tightening relations with China.

Trump had earlier said he planned to hold in-person talks with Kim before the end of the year.

But North Korea has not formally committed to such a meeting.

As renewed fighting spreads across northern Ethiopia, the government has accused Eritrea, Sudan and Egypt of backing armed opposition groups, raising fears that the conflict could draw in regional powers.

Over the weekend, Ethiopian army chief Birhanu Jula attributed his country’s unrest to those he called Ethiopia’s “historical and contemporary adversaries”.

Birhanu accused Eritrea of being the go-between linking these external powers – including Sudan and Egypt, which he explicitly named – with armed groups inside Ethiopia.

Eritrea, Sudan and Egypt have all rejected the accusations. Speaking to Al Jazeera, Egyptian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Nader Zaki said that Egypt’s foreign policy was founded on “full respect for the sovereignty, unity and territorial integrity of states, and noninterference in the internal affairs of other countries”.

Zaki added that Egypt “is fully committed to the rules of international law and the Charter of the United Nations, and rejects any practices that would undermine regional security and stability”.

Major-General Samir Farag, the former head of the Egyptian Armed Forces’ Morale Affairs Department, also told Al Jazeera that the accusations against Egypt were false. “It has not been Egypt’s policy to interfere in the internal affairs of any state in the region,” he said.

Sudan’s military also dismissed the accusations as “baseless” and levelled its own charge of destabilising behaviour at Ethiopia, accusing it of supporting the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF), which has been fighting the Sudanese Armed Forces since 2023. Ethiopia has denied those allegations.

Troubled relations

Ethiopia’s relations with the countries it has accused have already been strained by other disputes that predate the latest fighting.

Relations between Cairo and Addis Ababa have remained tense as a longstanding dispute over the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) remains unresolved. Competition between the two has increasingly extended to regional security, the Red Sea and the Horn of Africa.

Sudan’s relations with Ethiopia are similarly troubled. Since the outbreak of the Sudanese civil war, Khartoum has accused Addis Ababa of providing training, supplies and the use of Ethiopian territory to the RSF.

Eritrea had fought alongside Ethiopia against rebel groups in the latter’s Tigray region during a war between 2020 and 2022, but relations between the two neighbours have since soured, with Eritrea alarmed by Ethiopia’s attempts to gain access to the Red Sea.

Against that background, some analysts and Ethiopian opposition figures say that Addis Ababa is pointing the finger at foreign conspiracies in a bid to rally support behind its national army.

Mohamed Selim, deputy chair of the Egyptian parliament’s African Affairs Committee, told Al Jazeera that he believes the accusations were an attempt to shift attention from Ethiopia’s domestic problems by creating an external enemy and seeking to unify the internal front.

Amani al-Tawil, director of the Africa Programme at the Al-Ahram Centre for Political and Strategic Studies, similarly described the accusations as “an understandable attempt to escape from internal crises”.

She questioned why Egypt would choose this moment to intervene militarily in Ethiopia, given the two have been in dispute over GERD since 2011.

Al-Tawil said the breadth of the new opposition alliance in Ethiopia – seven groups representing disparate ethnic groups and regions announced the coalition last week – presented a challenge to Addis Ababa.

Spillover concerns

The renewed fighting in Ethiopia has spread across Tigray and into neighbouring Amhara and Afar.

Mohammed Hussein, the chairman of the Prosperity Party Afar Region Branch Office – the ruling party in Ethiopia’s Afar region – told Al Jazeera that the three regions together have a population of more than 38 million, according to his estimate, and include areas near the borders with Djibouti and Eritrea, raising fears of a regional war.

Ammar Arki, a writer focusing on Horn of Africa affairs, told Al Jazeera that Ethiopia had, at various stages, blamed Sudan, Egypt and Eritrea for contributing to instability inside Ethiopia.

He said the latest accusations could be interpreted as an attempt to redirect some domestic attention towards an external threat and build support around the federal government.

But Arki warned that the longer Addis Ababa continued to explain its internal crisis in terms of an “external conspiracy”, particularly if neighbouring states responded in the same way, the greater the risk that Ethiopia’s conflict could move beyond Ethiopia’s borders and become regional.

Indirect talks between the United States and Iran aimed at ending the seven-month-long war continue – most recently via Qatar as mediator on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) in New York – but the two sides still disagree about the agenda.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi left New York on Tuesday after telling state-run Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB) that he expects an official response to Tehran’s proposal to reopen the Strait of Hormuz by the end of the day. The proposal, which Iran said would see the strait reopened within seven days, was first passed to the US via Qatari mediators last week.

United States President Donald Trump was reported to have rejected that offer, under which Tehran would reopen the strait in return for Washington lifting its naval blockade, waiving sanctions, releasing an estimated $12bn in frozen Iranian assets and enforcing a wider regional ceasefire that includes Lebanon.

Under Iran’s proposal, wider peace talks, including discussions of its nuclear programme, would begin only then

Despite Trump’s public rejection, Araghchi says he has not yet received a formal response from Washington. Meanwhile, US media reports that Trump may well be willing to relax sanctions and unfreeze Iranian assets have been strongly denied by the US president.

Instead, US officials say, the US wants a deal that resolves all outstanding issues, particularly Tehran’s nuclear programme, in one go, rather than pursuing a gradual, step-by-step approach.

Here’s what we know about the talks:

Qatari mediators met Araghchi in New York on Monday to discuss how to advance Tehran’s proposal for reopening the Strait of Hormuz and then progressing to wider peace talks.

In a post on Telegram, Araghchi insisted that the talks focused solely on the Strait of Hormuz. He denied that the US had formally rejected the Iranian proposal.

“Despite what the US president said, I said that we were waiting for the official US response through the mediators … They [Qatar] had ideas, and we discussed them. They are going to raise this issue with the American side again, and then the final response from the American side will be conveyed to us through the Qatari mediator,” Araghchi said late on Monday.

Araghchi also said negotiations had become more “serious”, but cautioned that Tehran’s position has not changed.

“I state firmly that there has been no change in Iran’s position. Our conditions for opening the strait are clear. Our position on other issues is also clear. At present, there has been no discussion at all about flexibility,” he added.

Tehran’s proposal includes elements of the Islamabad memorandum of understanding (MoU), which was signed by both the US and Iran on June 17.

Is Trump willing to accept some Iranian demands?

A US official told The Associated Press news agency last week that Trump is not willing to make a final peace deal with Iran until the issue of its nuclear programme is addressed. According to the official, who has not been named, the US president would be willing, however, to grant Iran sanctions relief and release some frozen funds if progress is made on the nuclear file.

Then, on Monday, US-based news outlet Axios also reported that Trump had offered Iran sanctions relief in return for concessions on its nuclear programme. The report also cited US officials, one of whom told Axios that the indirect talks had been “positive and constructive”, adding that Tehran had indicated it was “flexible” on nuclear issues.

Trump, however, angrily denounced the story as a “hoax” in a post on Truth Social, the social media platform he owns. He said the story was “not true” and demanded Axios remove the article.

Iran has been heavily sanctioned for decades. The restrictions have severely affected Iranians’ quality of life, including their access to essential medicines and healthcare.

In August, the US announced yet more sweeping economic sanctions on Iran and countries that trade with it as it sought to apply more economic pressure to isolate the country from the global economy during the diplomatic deadlock in their war.

US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent described the campaign as the “economic asphyxiation” of Iran.

It is difficult to quantify exactly how many Iranians have been killed by what Tehran views as “economic warfare”. However, a study published last year by the highly regarded medical journal The Lancet Global Health concluded that more than 564,250 people worldwide die annually as a result of US sanctions.

What does the US want?

In late February, just before the US launched its first strikes on Iran, the two sides were already holding talks hosted by Oman, which included the issue of Iran’s nuclear programme.

But before those talks could conclude, the US and Israel launched strikes, triggering the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, through which one-fifth of the world’s oil and natural gas is shipped in peacetime, by Iran. The closure of the strait has since become the primary point of contention between the two sides, when it had not been an issue before the war began. The strait is currently subject to blockades by both sides.

Throughout the war, Trump has repeatedly expressed his desire to strike a deal with Tehran. However, serious differences between the two sides will need to be resolved first, including the order in which issues are addressed for the purpose of peace talks.

Iran wants to establish its control of the Strait of Hormuz, have sanctions lifted and assets unfrozen, as well as ensure an end to US-Israeli strikes before it will go back to negotiating other issues, such as its nuclear programme. This was the order of events laid out in the MoU agreed between Iran and the US in June, but which quickly fell apart.

The US, however, wants everything to be on the table at the same time – it does not want to agree to anything relating to these Iranian demands before it addresses the other issues.

Scott Lucas, professor of US politics and international relations at University College Dublin, told Al Jazeera that Washington effectively wants Iran to surrender.

“The Strait of Hormuz has become a fundamental issue. The question here is, will both sides give? The memorandum of understanding clearly gave Iran a role in the management of the strait,” Lucas said.

“When the Trump administration pulled away from negotiating on the basis of the memorandum, they effectively went back to the idea of Iran having to completely allow passage through the Strait of Hormuz with no guarantees over it, in terms of not only what it means for Iran financially, but [also] in terms of Iranian security. The Iranian government is not going to agree to that, so we’re stuck in this limbo right now,” he added.

“Are the Trump folks going to come back to the talks on the basis of the memorandum of understanding or something that is a revised version of it, or are they going to try and break the government with economic warfare until at least after the US elections in November? That’s where we are right now.”

What does Iran want?

After half a century of bitter enmity with Washington, Iran wants to consolidate what it sees as the strategic gains it has made during a war it did not start. This specifically includes its newly established ability to close the Strait of Hormuz, sending global energy markets into a tailspin and placing additional pressure on the Trump administration.

Since US-Israeli strikes on Iran began on February 28, Hormuz has dominated talks aimed at ending the war and emerged as Tehran’s greatest point of leverage. Prior to the conflict, Iran did not exert control over the waterway and all commercial shipping passed through freely.

For this reason, Iran will not move on to wider peace talks until it has leveraged its control of the strait to get its demands met. “Our discussion is clear. Right now, it is only about the Strait of Hormuz,” Araghchi said late on Monday.

“The opening of the Strait of Hormuz is also subject to the fulfilment of a series of conditions that we announced to the other side.”

Ali Salehian, director of the Center for Intellectual Diplomacy at the Governance and Policy Think Tank in Iran, told Al Jazeera that Tehran does not believe Washington will honour any future deal as it did not honour what was agreed under the Pakistan-brokered June MoU.

“For Iran, the bottom line of every negotiation with Trump, considering all of his misbehaving and [military] targeting of Iran during negotiations, is the Islamabad MoU,” Salehian said.

“Tehran thinks that if the US doesn’t fulfil its commitments based on the MoU, there is no guarantee that any kind of future deal would be sustainable.”

What is likely to happen next?

It does not look likely that the diplomatic standoff will be eased anytime soon, analysts say.

Both the US and Iran have indicated throughout the war that they would prefer a diplomatic settlement to a continuation of the war. However, Trump has continued to threaten Iran with more strikes if it does not agree to a deal, and Araghchi told US news outlet NBC on Sunday that Tehran is also prepared to resume fighting, even though it has not abandoned diplomacy.

“We are fully prepared for the time for the war to be resumed, and I repeat, we stand firm in the face of any new aggression, even if it comes to a doomsday war,” he said.

Trump said last week that he expects a deal will be reached, but not until after the US midterms on November 3.

“For the moment, the Trump administration is going to try to make the Iranian government capitulate through economic warfare,” Lucas said.

However, a deep sense of distrust remains between the two sides. Senior Iranian officials believe Trump will restart the war after the midterms on a far greater scale and that Israel would also participate.

If that theory proves true, Tehran may well prefer the fighting to resume before November’s elections, as it would allow Iran to impose a greater cost on Trump.

“The reaction of the Iranians to that might be to actually trigger the war themselves, early, right before the midterm elections in order to maximise the pain that [it] will impose on the US president,” Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the US-based Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, told Al Jazeera earlier this month.

Tehran, Iran – Iranians are stocking up on food and medicines as fears grow that the country will face dire shortages as the United States tightens an embargo on the country.

The Iranian government had managed to keep household staples flowing during the early months of the war. But a US naval blockade and pivot to draconian sanctions have led to fears that imports will be limited.

More recently, the US announced a ban on Iranian airlines worldwide and is pressing other countries to cut trade ties with Iran in a bid to isolate the country.

Addressing the United Nations General Assembly last week, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian condemned Washington for its blockade on his country, saying it will prevent food and medicine from reaching the Iranian people.

On Saturday, US President Donald Trump rejected Iran’s offer for a seven-day truce that would see it reopen the Strait of Hormuz in exchange for economic relief and other conditions.

As the war enters its eighth month and hopes for a diplomatic solution dim, Al Jazeera looks at how some Iranians are faring under a US embargo.

Consumers

Tehran’s stores remain stocked, but shoppers are keeping an eye on shop shelves. Their anxiety has deepened since a flurry of social media posts urging people to ensure they have several days of food before a possible new round of fighting with the US.

At one shopping centre, Ali, 51, was loading a trolley packed with rice, flour, pasta, pulses, cooking oil and canned food.

He is stocking up because he is convinced that Iran’s adversary is seeking to “starve” the people to push them to turn on their government.

“This is not a war in the traditional sense. It targets the people to put pressure on the authorities,” he said.

With flights to some nearby countries suspended, imports of certain medicines and mobile phone headsets are hard to find. The prices of those still available in shops have been pushed up.

Haj Pasandideh, a 71-year-old grocer, said he believed warehouses were well-stocked with basic goods at the moment. But the problem lies in the daily price increases due to Iran’s weakening rial, prompting him to bulk-buy goods before the expected hikes.

He sometimes caps cooking oil at one bottle per sale to ensure as many customers can purchase the goods as possible.

Exporters crushed

Farmers are also on edge due to the embargo, unable to ship out their produce and forced to sell to local markets.

The war has worsened the economic situation, even after years of sanctions that have pushed the country from being a regional exporter of agricultural and food products to being one of the region’s main importers.

Mehran, an apple grower, told Al Jazeera that due to the difficulties of exporting, he had sold only a third of this year’s harvest, all of it inside Iran.

Some neighbouring countries have halted trade with Iran in recent months, he said, while trucks now spend days at crossings they once cleared in a day, causing fruit to spoil before it reaches buyers.

“The blockade has not only closed the sea and air but also the land routes but in an undeclared manner,” he said.

Pharmaceutical shortages

The war has also deepened an already-dire shortage of medications. Some pharmacies Al Jazeera visited in southern Tehran had run out of infant formula and dozens of other types of medications.

Although officials have assured Iranians that substitute products were available, pharmacy staff expressed concern about the increasing number of customers searching for infant formula in vain.

“Imported medicines are disappearing fast, and lately people have been coming in to buy certain items before they need them for fear they will run out in future,” Mahsa, a 23-year-old pharmacy assistant, told Al Jazeera.

She said the health authorities had introduced “smart systems” to track the quantity and type of medication each person buys.

Breaking the blockade

The prospect of a prolonged siege and deteriorating economic conditions have driven some Iranians to call for a military solution.

On Tehran’s main thoroughfare, several people told Al Jazeera that another round of fighting with the US was unavoidable. Some urged the government to break the blockade by force before it is tightened further.

Mohsen, a 23-year-old economics student, believes Washington’s goal is to strangle the Iranian economy and the cost will ultimately be felt by Iranian citizens.

Iran possesses many strong cards that it must use to break the air and sea blockade before they develop into a land blockade that would completely choke Tehran, he said.

Alireza Taghavinia, an Iranian international relations expert, told Al Jazeera that the gap between Washington and Tehran was too wide to be bridged. “The siege imposed by force will only be lifted by force,” he said.

In a worst-case scenario, falling living standards could bring protesters onto the streets, he added.

“The enemy is counting on stirring up chaos inside Iran because it believes no military strike will achieve its objectives without internal unrest,” he said.

Tehran, Iran – Hours after US President Donald Trump rejected a diplomatic solution put forward by Iran to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, explosions were heard in the waterway, according to Iranian media.

Reports of blasts near southern Iran’s Qeshm Island in the Strait of Hormuz suggested that multiple antiship missiles and drones were fired at vessels transiting the waterway against Tehran’s wishes.

While Iranian authorities did not confirm any attacks in the Strait of Hormuz that day, shipping continues to be attacked in the waters, including an Indian cargo ship last week, which killed a sailor.

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) maintains that the strait is closed to any ship that does not coordinate with Iranian authorities. On Sunday afternoon, it released video of what it said was a second US underwater drone seized this month.

Tehran has issued instructions to shipping companies transiting the Strait of Hormuz to use a temporary route approved by Iranian authorities and pay relevant fees. But it has also said the strait will not fully reopen until the US blockade on Iranian ports ends.

Iran’s Persian Gulf Strait Authority announced on Saturday that it would blacklist any shipping charterer company which orders crews to use routes it considers to be unauthorised.

It also published what it described as an apology from an unnamed shipowner blaming commercial pressure from its charterer for trying to pass through the strait.

Washington still insists that its warships are successfully guiding oil tankers out of the strait via a different route. US Energy Secretary Chris Wright told Fox News on Sunday that the “running average” of crude oil in transit was nearly 13 million barrels per day.

A September 19 operational update by US Central Command claimed that its forces had helped move more than one billion barrels of crude out of the Gulf over roughly two months.

The US military also says its forces have redirected 122 commercial vessels to enforce the naval blockade of Iran’s ports, halting all Iranian crude exports.

Tehran has claimed that the US is providing false information regarding Strait of Hormuz traffic to project control over the key waterway. Shipping has been severely disrupted since the US and Israel started their war on Iran on February 28.

Andreas Krieg, associate professor at King’s College London, said Iran’s strategy of launching maritime attacks has spread the economic costs of the conflict beyond its borders.

While Iran has suffered economically from war damages, the US naval blockade and sanctions, it would be a mistake “to assume that reaching that threshold produces submission”.

“The next Iranian move is therefore likely to be an attempt to increase the pain experienced by the Gulf rather than simply absorb further American pressure,” Krieg said.

“That could mean more aggressive vessel interdictions in Hormuz, attacks on energy infrastructure, greater Houthi pressure around Bab al-Mandeb and pressure from Iranian-aligned groups against alternative Saudi export routes. We are already seeing how pressure on Hormuz, the Red Sea and Saudi infrastructure can interact.”

More escalation on the way

At the United Nations General Assembly in New York, Iran projected a message of defiance while also proposing to reopen the Strait of Hormuz within a week if its seven conditions were met.

They included lifting the blockade on Iran, the release of frozen Iranian funds and an end to attacks on all fronts, including Israel’s assault on Lebanon. The demands mostly amounted to a return to the June memorandum of understanding between the US and Israel.

Tehran has added that reopening the strait must be undertaken through a bilateral arrangement already finalised with Oman, the only other country with territorial waters in Hormuz.

US President Donald Trump told reporters he rejected the offer, but Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said on Sunday they were adamant about the conditions and would await an official response through mediators, such as Pakistan, Qatar and Oman.

Abolfazl Shekarchi, chief spokesman of the Iranian armed forces, warned that if the US further intervenes in the Strait of Hormuz, “it will get slapped”.

“The Americans have no way out other than withdrawing from the West Asia region. The sooner they leave, the fewer losses they will incur and the region will certainly become safe after that,” he said.

Iranian army spokesman Mohammad Akraminia  said conditions were deteriorating so badly for the US that it might launch another “military aggression” on Iran.

Krieg said that as the US moves to isolate Iran via sanctions, Tehran, unable to respond with mutual financial measures against Washington, will be forced to rely on continued coercion in the Strait of Hormuz.

“The most likely level remains controlled attrition rather than an immediate return to the massive air campaign of the opening months,” Krieg said.

“Over the coming weeks, I would expect further attacks or attempted attacks on tankers, US-enabled shipping and regional infrastructure, followed by limited US strikes against IRGC maritime assets, coastal missile positions, drones or vessels involved in those operations. That tit-for-tat cycle has already re-emerged around Hormuz.”

The red carpet was rolled out, and a trade truce was extended. Yet, beneath the pomp and pageantry of Chinese President Xi Jinping’s state visit with US leader Donald Trump on Thursday, Washington and Beijing remain locked in a much deeper strategic rivalry.

Xi arrived in Washington, DC on Wednesday evening for talks on Thursday, and Trump was there to meet him personally on the tarmac.

The meeting was the first state visit by a Chinese leader to the US in 11 years. But it is also the third time in less than a year that the two men have met face to face, as the two powers remain uneasily gridlocked in competition over AI, rare-earth metals, the question of Taiwan, and the Iran war.

Overhanging it all is the paused, but simmering, trade war between their two nations.

Almost as soon as Trump began his second term in the White House in January 2025, up went tariffs on Chinese goods as he accused China of facilitating the flow of fentanyl, a deadly drug, to the US. Beijing responded with its own levies, then restricted exports of valuable rare-earth metals which are crucial for the development and manufacture of everything high-tech, from smartphones to fighter jets. At one point, tariffs were heading towards 150 percent before being paused to allow time for talks.

Finally, the two leaders called a truce on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit in South Korea on October 30, and they met once more, in May, when Trump travelled to Beijing.

As Xi landed in Washington on Wednesday this week, the Trump administration announced that the two countries had agreed to extend an October 2025 truce which had offered some respite from the punishing tariffs, produced an agreement from China to buy more soyabeans from the US and delayed the ban on rare-earth exports from China until January 10. The prospect of a much-longed-for trade deal appeared to be in the air when US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told Fox News he had met Chinese ‌Vice Premier He Lifeng before Xi’s visit to “see if we could ⁠do a bigger deal as opposed to just a series ⁠of smaller things”.

But analysts have, for the most part, shot down such hopes. Beyond tariffs, they say, the simmering conflict between the two powers now encompasses new US sanctions on buyers of Russian oil – namely China – and sweeping investment and research restrictions, never mind the intensifying race for dominance in artificial intelligence.

“The two-month extension isn’t a bridge to a grand bargain – it’s a temporary sandbag holding back a structural flood,” Beijing-based Einar Tangen, a senior fellow at the Center for International Governance Innovation, told Al Jazeera.

Theatrics or continued thaw in tensions?

In fact, the truce is little more than “transactional theatre” – an attempt at good optics before the upcoming US midterm elections – Tangen said.

Trump’s deeply unpopular war on Iran has already inflicted severe damage to his chances in that vote. Democrats are leading in the polls amid concerns about the rising cost of energy, triggered by the war which the US started. Trump ultimately needs wins on other issues.

The current truce with China serves a purpose, therefore, but is fragile enough to be undone the moment political utility shifts for Trump, Tangen said.

“Success in January won’t be measured by what is solved, but by whether the knot is left tight enough to hold, but not kill,” said Tangen.

Phillippe Le Corre, professor of international relations and Asian studies at France’s ESSEC Business School, said the length of the truce extension indicates clearly that a more permanent deal remains out of grasp.

“The extensions are getting shorter and shorter, which means they haven’t found a common ground on many issues,” Le Corre told Al Jazeera.

“The two-month extension is a terrible outcome for the US. Nothing is resolved, and many Damocles’ swords are still hanging over Washington’s head,” he added.

Trump’s entire China policy, Le Corre argued, is in fact short-sighted. “That is bringing the world a lot of uncertainty,” he said.

Some analysts are more hopeful, but not much. Sun Chenghao, a fellow at the Center for International Security and Strategy at Tsinghua University in Beijing, described the extension of the trade truce as a “useful interim step”. It shows that both sides want to preserve the recent easing of tensions, which is meaningful progress, he said.

“From China’s perspective, a sustainable agreement needs reciprocal benefits and greater policy predictability,” Sun told Al Jazeera. “Additional purchases cannot indefinitely compensate for uncertainty over tariffs, technology restrictions and market access.”

The extension’s value, however, will depend on whether it produces “concrete commitments” from Beijing and Washington, Sun added.

A game of ‘economic chicken’

There is motivation to get a deal done, analysts say. Any escalation in the US-China trade war will be costly for both sides.

But there is some way to go. A Congressional Research Service report in July 2026 noted that Chinese goods exported to the US still face tariffs of 36.5 percent, while US goods entering China are taxed at 31 percent.

Any higher, and they will raise import and manufacturing costs in the US, squeeze margins and increase pressure on consumer prices, said Sun. They would also hurt US farmers and industrial exporters, he added, just as the US faces pressure from the rising costs of its war on Iran, which have pushed it into a record national debt of $40 trillion two years earlier than expected.

“Washington is playing a high-stakes game of economic chicken with a $40 trillion debt load, an inflationary sword of Damocles, zero fiscal cushion to absorb a truce collapse and a dependence [on] Chinese industrial and manufacturing inputs,” Tangen said.

US consumers and the economy in general will find it tough to survive yet another inflationary shock from renewed tariffs “at a time when the federal budget already operates like a high-wire Ponzi scheme”.

Then there is the AI race, which no one can afford to lose. According to Jon Bateman, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a partial “decoupling” of US and Chinese technology ecosystems is under way. US policymakers have pushed to become less dependent on Chinese tech and “to secure America’s technological future in the context of a rising China”, Bateman writes.

But that will not help if there is a collapse in valuations of companies in the AI sector, which currently drive global stock markets. An AI valuation collapse, Tangen warned, “could trigger a financial tsunami that makes 2008 look tame – making technological decoupling meaningless as the world is plunged into a depression”.

Despite the trade war and Trump’s tariffs, China’s trade with other countries has risen sharply, with the country registering a $1.2 trillion global trade surplus last year. But an escalation of the trade war with the US would nevertheless spell increased pressure on export orders, employment in exposed industries and business confidence, said Sun.

Beijing does hold one crucial ace card – it is sitting on 60 percent of the world’s known deposits of rare-earth minerals, said Le Corre. It processes 90 percent of them, too. These are the metals that all countries need supplies of for semiconductors, technological components and the manufacture of weapons, to name but a few. Last year, China began to make use of that leverage by restricting exports of five of the 12 rare-earth metals it mines in April. Then, in October, it prepared to restrict seven more – until the trade truce happened. Plans for the export restrictions are not shelved, however, merely on hold.

“[China] understood this over the past year and they are certainly not going to give up on this,” said Le Corre.

“Washington is hostile, but it is hooked,” Tangen said. “You cannot threaten China with secondary sanctions on energy while desperately needing its rare-earths to fuel your military-industrial base.”

A drawn-out path to durability

The path to a lasting US-China trade deal will be long and rocky. First, any new tariff reductions will need more coverage and duration, said Sun.

For a deal to last, it would also require “more predictable licensing and actual deliveries of rare earths and critical minerals; restraint in expanding technology restrictions; and market access reflected in regulatory approvals and completed transactions”, he said.

A durable agreement also needs regular consultations and a process for resolving complaints. If all this can be hammered out then, just maybe, there might be a chance, Sun said.

Tangen and Le Corre were less optimistic, however. “The US view of China as an existential threat has to change before there can be solutions,” said Tangen.

Le Corre, meanwhile, said that while China is a long-term planner, “durable is a word that can hardly be associated with Trump.”

The existing trade truce also risks breaking down if there are new unilateral tariffs, broader technology or mineral restrictions, or disputes over whether commitments have been fulfilled, said Sun.

Tensions over Taiwan, which China claims as its own territory, but for which the US approved an $11.1bn arms sale in December last year, could also trigger a breakdown in trade relations, the analysts said.

“Taiwan remains the ultimate low-probability, catastrophic-impact tail risk – where a single round of arms sales can snap a multibillion-dollar trade truce in an instant,” Tangen noted.

Islamabad, Pakistan — The motorway linking Pakistan’s capital with Peshawar, about 180km (110 miles) to the northwest, has been closed to all traffic until further notice, according to a police notification.

So have the highway towards Dera Ismail Khan, the Hazara motorway and the Grand Trunk Road at Attock.

Each carries traffic between Islamabad and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, the province governed by the party of jailed former Prime Minister Imran Khan, whose supporters plan to march on the capital on Sunday, September 27, demanding his release.

The motorway from Lahore, about 375km (235 miles) to the southeast, remains open.

Inside Islamabad, workers have welded shipping containers together and filled them with gravel and sand so they cannot be pushed aside. Several schools and colleges have been told to shut so police brought in from Punjab and Sindh can be housed there.

Police expect the march to draw between 20,000 and 25,000 people, according to local media reports.

While two of the country’s main opposition parties announced marches on the capital this month, only Khan’s Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) has faced measures on this scale.

Jamaat-e-Islami (JI), a religious party, also set out for Islamabad last week to protest against rising fuel prices. On Monday, Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif telephoned its leader, Hafiz Naeemur Rehman, and by Tuesday afternoon JI had postponed its march, pending a meeting between the two men.

PTI leaders have received no such call.

Instead, Khan’s three sisters, all over the age of 65, have been detained in Lahore and at least six of the party’s legislators in Islamabad, all under a 1960 public order law that allows preventive detention without charge.

PTI says the true figure of those arrested is higher, and that one lawmaker taken from the parliament lodges has not been traced since.

Khan has been in prison since August 2023 and remains Pakistan’s most prominent opposition figure. But his party enters the final stretch before the protest weakened, with no major demonstration outside Khyber Pakhtunkhwa since November 2024, by its own account.

Yet, say analysts, the Pakistani government appears to be treating the protest march as a far bigger threat than a regular political event would warrant.

“While this is undoubtedly a difficult moment for PTI, it is equally exposing the government’s own frustration,” Habib Akram, a Lahore-based political analyst, told Al Jazeera.

“In fact, the government’s conduct suggests something more. It isn’t just afraid of this protest; it has turned this protest into a matter of its own survival.”

A capital behind containers

More than 2,000 containers have been placed across Islamabad and at Attock Bridge, the main crossing between Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Punjab, according to media reports, with 19,000 police officers on their way from Punjab and Sindh, and thousands more deployed at Attock.

Dawn, the country’s leading English-language newspaper, said in an editorial that the government appeared to be preparing “not for a political event but an invasion”.

Talal Chaudhry, the junior interior minister, rejected the suggestion that the government was shutting down the capital itself.

“Normal life in Islamabad is continuing. Hospitals, offices and essential services are functioning. The containers and security arrangements are precautionary measures, not a shutdown,” he told Al Jazeera.

Rana Ihsaan Afzal, a coordinator to the prime minister and a government spokesperson, was more candid.

“In trying to counter the rhetoric PTI has adopted, we do have to take certain measures, and yes, those measures carry their own consequences too, but we have to look at the bigger picture,” he told Al Jazeera.

It is all being mounted during one of the deadliest weeks for Pakistan’s security forces this year.

An attack on a police compound in Kohat, in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, killed more than 20 people on September 18, and six soldiers were killed in a gunfight in nearby Hangu two days later.

Interior Minister Mohsin Naqvi set those losses against the march in Lahore on Monday.

“The situation in KP [Khyber Pakhtunkhwa] over the past 10 days is before everyone. There was a suicide attack on a mosque, and two or three other attacks. Our captain was killed, our soldiers were killed, our policemen were killed, and these people are preparing to storm a city,” he said.

The government’s case

Government ministers have seized on a remark by Junaid Akbar, PTI’s chief in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, who said protesters would turn Islamabad into Somnath, a Hindu temple in India sacked by Mehmood of Ghazni, an 11th-century invader, to try to paint the upcoming protest as a major law and order threat.

“Peaceful people do not leave their homes carrying nail-studded sticks,” Information Minister Attaullah Tarar said in Kohat on Monday.

But the PTI’s Sohail Afridi, the chief minister of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, who will lead the September 27 march, answered Tarar in Peshawar on Monday.

“We will go there on nothing but two hands and two feet. There will be nothing else in our hands,” he said.

In a September 18 judgement, the Islamabad High Court ruled that no party could block roads into the capital, and barred provincial governments from using state resources for the march.

Days later came the arrests of Imran Khan’s sisters. Aleema Khan was detained in Lahore on Sunday, and her sisters, Uzma Khan and Noreen Niazi, were taken in a predawn raid on their homes the next day, according to a family statement on September 22.

The Lahore High Court has reserved its decision on whether a petition challenging Aleema’s detention is admissible, after the family’s lawyer argued that the order was issued after the arrest.

Chaudhry said the sisters faced several cases, had led confrontational protests in the past, and were being held as a preventive measure.

PTI says the arrests reach far wider, listing five members of the National Assembly, a senator, provincial legislators and more than 1,500 workers.

“We were peaceful, we are peaceful, and we will remain peaceful. We are being punished for being peaceful,” Gohar Ali Khan, the PTI chairman, said in Peshawar on Monday, noting that four women from Khan’s family, including his wife Bushra Bibi, are now in jail.

‘Long march’ vs ‘permanent plan of action’

But Interior Minister Naqvi suggested that the government is bracing for a confrontation.

“I think this time we will draw up a permanent plan of action. We will not go halfway,” Naqvi said in Lahore on Monday, adding that the matter would be settled “once and for all”.

What he ruled out was a long sit-in of the kind PTI has staged before.

“This time, it will not happen that they come, and the country is shut down for 10 or 20 days. That possibility does not exist,” he said.

Afridi has signalled that he has exactly that in mind.

“The long march is not a T20, it will be a Test match,” he said on Monday, a reference to cricket’s five-day format.

If Naqvi’s comments sound ominous, they also carry a history with them.

On May 9, 2023, after Imran Khan was briefly arrested, his supporters attacked military installations across the country, including burning down a senior commander’s official residence in Lahore. That led to a major crackdown on the PTI’s supporters and leaders, with hundreds placed under arrest for days, and party leaders pressured to leave the group.

Then, on November 26, 2024, a PTI march on Islamabad ended in an overnight crackdown by security forces, in which the party says at least 12 of its supporters were killed. The government denies that, and says four security personnel died — even though Al Jazeera met families of some of the PTI supporters killed.

A contested mandate

PTI was stripped of its electoral symbol before the February 2024 general election, forcing its candidates to run as independents.

They still won 93 seats, more than any other party, but could not form a coalition, and the Pakistan Muslim League – Nawaz took power with other major parties.

A Commonwealth observer group, in its report on the polls released a year later, found that decisions by key institutions had “consistently limited the ability of one particular party” to contest the vote, in a reference to the PTI.

While the Election Commission of Pakistan rejected allegations of rigging, two and a half years on, the popularity scale remains tilted in favour of PTI.

Bilal Gilani, executive director of the pollster Gallup Pakistan, said its unpublished Public Opinion Pulse surveys showed a landscape broadly similar to 2024.

“PTI continues to lead nationally, but faces strong competition from PML-N in Punjab and PPP in Sindh,” he told Al Jazeera, adding that Khan remained the country’s most popular leader.

For Akram, that unresolved argument — over the lack of legitimacy of the 2024 election in the eyes of Pakistanis — is what keeps the pressure on.

“You can hold as much power as you want, but that question never fully goes away. It continues to haunt you, and it continues to be a source of anxiety for the government,” Akram said.

The ‘hard state’

In March 2025, army chief Field Marshal Asim Munir, who now also serves as Pakistan’s chief of defence forces, told a parliamentary security committee that the country must stop acting as a “soft state”.

“How long will we continue to sacrifice countless lives in a manner of a soft state?” he asked, according to state broadcaster PTV.

For Ahmed Ijaz, an Islamabad-based political analyst, the response to the September 27 march is a response to that thinking, rather than the PTI’s strength.

“Behind that confidence lies the thinking of a hard state, one that has decided no one will be granted an unconditional right to protest going forward,” he said.

Akram, however, said that a different factor might also be worrying the government and the military behind it.

The war in the Middle East has pushed petrol to 393.75 rupees ($1.42) a litre ($5.37 per gallon), up about 51 rupees ($0.18) since the start of September. That is what Jamaat-e-Islami was marching against, and it has warned that it will resume its march in October if the prime minister offers no relief.

Akram said the government’s real worry is multiple issues of antigovernment anger — price rises and Imran Khan’s continued incarceration — coming together.

“That merging could then pull other groups out onto the streets too, and that is precisely what worries the government,” he said.

Excluding Ra’am and the Joint List leaves Palestinian citizens in Israel without major Knesset representation options.

Israel’s Central Elections Committee has voted to bar both main Arab electoral lists from next month’s election, putting the political representation of Palestinian citizens of Israel before the Supreme Court weeks before voters go to the polls.

The committee voted on Wednesday to disqualify the United Arab List, or Ra’am, led by Mansour Abbas, and the Joint List, an alliance of the Arab-led Hadash, Ta’al and Balad parties. It also voted separately to bar Hadash legislator Ofer Cassif and Balad leader Sami Abu Shehadeh. The election is scheduled for October 27.

The bans are not final. Decisions against individual candidates require Supreme Court approval, while lists can appeal their exclusion. Adalah, the legal centre representing the parties and candidates, says it will challenge the votes when the court hears the cases next week.

Ra’am called its exclusion “political and unacceptable”, saying the decision was intended to prevent it from influencing the balance of power and changing the government.

The Joint List said Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and far-right National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir were trying to discourage Arab citizens from voting “because they fear our ability to bring down the government of genocide and racism”. Its leader, Yousef Jabareen, questioned how the committee could bar parties representing more than 1.25 million voters.

Abu Shehadeh told Al Jazeera that his exclusion was an attempt to silence criticism of government policy and said the decisions would be challenged in court and through public protest. Rejecting the allegation that he supports violence, he told The Times of Israel: “I have never called for violence or terrorism. I oppose armed struggle.”

The petitions invoke Section 7A of Basic Law: The Knesset, which allows a list or candidate to be excluded for denying Israel’s existence as a “Jewish and democratic state”, inciting racism or supporting armed struggle against Israel by an enemy state or an organisation designated as terrorist.

Netanyahu’s Likud party sought to disqualify the Joint List and Cassif, and was among the groups that filed against Ra’am. Ben-Gvir’s Otzma Yehudit party also sought to bar Abu Shehadeh. Adalah disputes the allegations. It says the case against Ra’am presents no evidence that the party supports armed struggle, while the Joint List petition relies heavily on old material, including bills proposed in previous Knessets.

Abu Shehadeh’s case has drawn a different response. Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara found no legal basis to exclude the other targeted parties and candidates but said an article he published on October 8, 2023, which she said may constitute support for armed struggle, warranted serious examination. The committee voted 31-4 to bar him. Adalah says the article contains no such call.

The push to bar Abu Shehadeh drew support from parties outside Netanyahu’s coalition. According to The Times of Israel, opposition parties voted to disqualify him, as did Supreme Court Justice Noam Sohlberg, who chairs the elections committee. The vote broke with decades of precedent in which committee chairs abstained from disqualification votes. Abu Shehadeh’s exclusion still requires approval from the full Supreme Court.

Why the Arab vote matters

Ra’am joined the coalition government formed by Naftali Bennett and Yair Lapid in 2021, helping end Netanyahu’s 12 consecutive years in office in 2021, although Abbas had previously discussed cooperation with Netanyahu as well. Now Likud itself has filed petitions against Arab representation, while Ben-Gvir’s party has pursued separate exclusions.

A Channel 12 poll published on Tuesday projected seven seats for the Joint List and five for Ra’am, against 50 for Netanyahu’s current coalition bloc. The 12 projected Arab seats would not automatically back Netanyahu’s opponents, as mainstream opposition parties remain divided over whether to govern with Arab support. But removing both lists would change the possible routes to the 61-seat majority needed to form a government.

The Supreme Court has overturned previous committee bans on Arab lists and candidates, including Balad’s exclusion in 2022. It must now decide whether the evidence meets the legal threshold for barring the two principal lists seeking to represent Palestinian citizens of Israel. The ruling will determine who can appear on the October ballot.

Tehran, Iran – Travel is becoming increasingly difficult for Iranian civilians as United States sanctions shut domestic airlines out of much of the world’s airspace and international carriers continue to avoid the country.

The US Department of the Treasury designated 27 airlines on September 8, covering the remaining Iranian carriers that had not previously been sanctioned by Washington. Major names like Iran Air and Mahan are among those already heavily sanctioned, but have continued limited operations.

Recent designations have also targeted individuals and entities linked to aviation support and procurement in the United Arab Emirates, Turkiye, China, India, the United Kingdom, Malaysia and elsewhere.

Airports and companies that provide Iranian-operated aeroplanes with fuel, landing services, or ticket sales risk secondary US sanctions that could cut them off from the US financial system, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said on Monday. It is the latest attempt to squeeze Iran and force it to make concessions amid the US-Israel war on Iran.

Wednesday marked the expiry of a short wind-down period allowing countries to stop servicing Iranian carriers, leading to the cancellation of all but a handful of Iranian flights to Turkiye, UAE and China.

Aviation authorities in several neighbouring countries that had continued to allow Iranian airlines to use their airspace and airport services would no longer be providing them, including Oman, Azerbaijan, and Georgia. In Iraq, Baghdad Airport was declared off-limits to Iranian carriers, but flights to Najaf Airport were still operating on Wednesday.

Many flights between Iran and major transit hubs in Turkiye and the UAE had already been suspended because of the war and sanctions. International airlines have also largely stopped flying to Iran, with Turkish Airlines suspending flights until at least March 2027, and Qatar Airways, Emirates, and Lufthansa’s operations also suspended.

‘A new level’ of sanctions

Iran-based aviation and transit expert Mohammadreza Ebrahimpour said years of US sanctions had already forced Iranian airlines to rely on third countries and work with smaller firms to get fuel or services. Obtaining spare parts needed to keep Iran’s ageing aircraft flying has also become increasingly difficult.

But the decision by aviation authorities in neighbouring countries to formally refuse services to Iranian airlines constituted “a new level of sanctions in action” that could have longer-lasting consequences, he told Al Jazeera.

Ebrahimpour said the US had also effectively prohibited international airlines from flying through Iranian airspace by suspending authorisations for some US-origin aircraft to fly to Iran and limiting US-linked overflight payments.

“This is a big blow because payments for overflights were one of the most lucrative parts of [Iran’s] aviation industry, which could act as a support for developing infrastructure and the overall industry,” Ebrahimpour said, adding that Iran earned more than $300m a year from this.

Beyond the effect on civilian passengers and the import of some goods, the measures could put tens of thousands of jobs at risk across the aviation sector and related industries, including tourism and hospitality.

Ebrahimpour pointed out that the International Civil Aviation Agency and other organisations have failed to offer any tangible protection to Iran’s aviation industry during years of sanctions. Iranian authorities, he said, would likely consider China and Russia among the few countries potentially able to provide assistance.

The two countries have rejected US sanctions against Iran, although some of their more globally connected financial networks and companies have, at times, distanced themselves from Iran to avoid secondary sanctions.

Under pressure from all fronts

The flight cancellations have pushed thousands of travellers towards land crossings, particularly those with Turkiye and Armenia, where onward international flights remain available for Iranians. Heavy congestion has been reported in recent days at the Bazargan and Razi border crossings with Turkiye and along land routes to the Armenian capital Yerevan.

But everyday passenger travel overland into Azerbaijan remains restricted, with Azerbaijan’s government citing internal security and COVID-19 restrictions. As a result, Iranians cannot cross overland into Azerbaijan to catch a flight there.

The Shalamcheh and Chazabeh border crossings with Iraq were also temporarily closed earlier this month, leaving travellers stranded, before reopening to passengers on September 13.

For thousands of Iranians attempting to travel, the flight suspensions mean significantly longer journeys. Some members of the Iranian diaspora have expressed concern online that the lingering effects of war and sanctions could potentially prevent them from visiting parents and other family members in Iran.

Bus tickets from Iran to Turkiye have reportedly sold for quadruple their normal price on the black market amid surging demand.

Some of the people making the journey are young Iranians who are attempting to take international language tests that are not allowed to be administered inside Iran due to sanctions. The tests are often a prerequisite for anyone planning to study, work, or settle abroad.

Iranian academics have also expressed concern about growing isolation from the international academic community. Numerous universities across the globe, including in Norway, Australia, Singapore, Estonia and elsewhere, have in recent weeks rejected postgraduate and research applications from Iranians as a result of US education sanctions.

At the same time, many of Iran’s roughly 90 million people are currently unable to afford international travel – or even domestic flights – as the country’s economic conditions worsen.

The Trump administration has portrayed the war and sanctions as measures directed at the Iranian authorities.

The US Treasury has said its aviation restrictions are intended to disrupt the use of Iranian commercial aviation for weapons procurement and transportation, including activities linked to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). But the designation of entire airlines under “Operation Economic Outcast”, after nearly seven months of war, has also had sweeping consequences for affected civilians.

Iran’s international aviation network was already badly damaged prior to the latest package of sanctions. Aviation analytics company Cirium reported that international capacity in August 2026 was 49 percent lower than in August 2025, despite a modest recovery from July.

The latest flight cancellations are also expected to further disrupt imports by air at a time when the US naval blockade of Iran’s southern ports in the Strait of Hormuz has constrained maritime trade routes, while war and sanctions have caused disruptions and delays to road and rail cargo routes.

Some of Iran’s medical imports enter the country by air, raising concerns that the latest aviation restrictions could place more pressure on an already struggling healthcare sector. A domestic pharmaceutical company executive told Al Jazeera earlier this month that the cost of some imported supplies, some of which arrived by air, had risen as much as 10-fold as a result of sanctions, wider economic pressure, and war damage.

Addressing the United Nations General Assembly in New York on Wednesday, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian accused the Trump administration of “bullying”.

“They have tested Iran’s resilience, and now they know full well that Iran cannot be forced to surrender through war,” Pezeshkian said.

Millions of voters went to polls in Morocco on Wednesday to determine the makeup of the House of Representatives, the parliament’s lower house.

Twenty-seven political parties are competing for 395 seats in the country’s 12th legislative election since independence in 1956.

Almost 16 million people are able to vote, with 55 percent residing in urban areas and 45 percent in rural regions, seeing a mix of concerns among voters.

Economic frustrations

While King Mohammed VI will maintain most executive powers, the new government will manage many public affairs for the coming years.

Once the votes are counted, the king will appoint the head of government from the leading party, but they will still need the support of 198 deputies – an absolute majority – to gain parliamentary confidence.

The election comes at a time of mounting challenges for the country, with the economic situation creating discontent and frustration, Mohammed Masbah, head of the Moroccan Institute for Policy Analysis, told Al Jazeera.

“The upcoming elections will have special importance because they come in a context tied to a social and economic crisis, especially high prices and the cost of living on one hand,” Masbah told Al Jazeera.

“On the other hand, there is a state of frustration among broad segments of society, especially the youth. The Gen Z protests last year, as well as the attempt to cross towards Ceuta a few weeks ago, demonstrate this crisis.”

The introduction of a new financial system designed to support candidates aged 35 could encourage more youth participation. But the nearly six million Moroccans residing overseas, many of them younger citizens, will have to appoint a proxy in Morocco to cast their vote.

There is also an upcoming key milestone for the country with the 2030 World Cup, which requires huge investments. What will remain in the minds of most voters is the state of the economy and inflation, which have impacted the living standards of many Moroccans.

“I believe the upcoming elections will produce a government majority whose primary function will be to address these imbalances, especially the economic ones related to the high cost of living in Morocco,” Masbah said.

“Regarding the issues that were raised and discussed by the majority of political parties, whether represented in the government or the opposition, they are the issue of employment and high prices.”

Two of the main parties competing in the election, the National Rally of Independents and the Authenticity and Modernity Party, have put these issues at the front of their campaigns in what has been a heated election.

“Of course, this is the main topic, but in the public debate, we also noticed conflicts, especially between the top two parties currently running the government,” Masbah said. “We noticed mudslinging and accusations of squandering funds and stealing candidates, which may increase voter alienation from voting today.”

Despite the tense conditions, Morocco’s Public Prosecution has recorded a significant drop in election-related complaints compared with the 2021 vote.

But legal amendments that criminalise digital offences for the first time – including the dissemination of fake news and false allegations intended to defame candidates or voters – have been introduced. The digital space became the primary arena for violations this year, accounting for 22 complaints.

Masbah said that despite a mood of frustration in Morocco over the government’s inability to manage key economic and social issues, turnout is expected to remain steady, as it has been over the past 20 years, due to structural factors.

“Electoral and voting behaviour in Morocco is not primarily linked to electoral programmes and promises [of parties], as much as it is linked to the stable bloc formed by Moroccan deserts and villages, which relies primarily on a network of notables who have influence and the ability to win voters’ voices through utilitarian voting,” Masbah said.

“I expect that if there is a decline in the voting rate – and this is likely – it will not be catastrophic or a sharp decline, given the consideration I mentioned earlier, which is the focus on notables and traditional elites in winning over voters.”

At the colloquium established shortly after the second world war to prevent future wars, United States President Donald Trump did just the inverse: He platformed his unceasing threats against Iran, suggesting almost casually on Tuesday that he could “annihilate” the country he has waged war against since February 28.

But behind closed doors on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA), a flurry of diplomatic activity concerning the ongoing US-Iran war has also been unfolding, as world leaders gather in New York.

The US and Iran held indirect talks for three hours on Tuesday. US special envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner met Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, with Trump calling it a “very good” and “very productive” meeting. Trump also met Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) leaders that day, with senior officials from the region mulling a Qatari proposal for a common security framework involving Iran and the Gulf states.

Meanwhile, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian arrived in New York early on Wednesday – the first time a leader whose country is at war with the US has set foot on US soil to address the gathering. And Chinese President Xi Jinping will skirt New York to instead meet Trump one-on-one in Washington, DC – his first state visit to the US in just less than a decade. Xi lands on Wednesday evening.

All these separate diplomatic initiatives, analysts tell Al Jazeera, are parts of a push to bring Iran and the US back to the negotiating table. According to Al Jazeera’s correspondent in Tehran, Tohid Asadi, Araghchi’s meeting with Witkoff and Kushner was to convey Tehran’s latest set of conditions to end the war, following the collapse of the June 60-day memorandum of understanding (MoU) finalised in Islamabad, Pakistan.

But analysts say expecting an actual deal to emerge this week from the diplomatic meetings in the US would be unrealistic. Multiple actors and mediators in the conflict are testing possible off-ramps, but core disagreements between Washington and Tehran remain unresolved.

“I am sceptical that a breakthrough deal can emerge this week, but a series of understandings can build confidence for renewed diplomacy,” Sanam Vakil, the director of the Middle East and North Africa Programme at Chatham House, told Al Jazeera.

Too early for a breakthrough

Vakil is hesitant to call the current moment ripe for a diplomatic breakthrough – it is far too early, and there is a history of negotiations failing, she said.

“Both sides have been negotiating for over two years and on two occasions, that ended with military conflict and these negotiations continue amid persistent military threats,” she said.

Iran has long pointed to its previous rounds of diplomatic talks with the US – in 2025 and again this year – as evidence that Washington can veer from negotiations to military action. It has cited the 12-day war last June, and the current conflict, which began with joint US-Israeli strikes on Tehran at a time Washington and Tehran were engaged in Oman-mediated dialogue.

Adel Abdel Ghafar, a senior fellow focusing on the Middle East at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, said that there appears to be “genuine” movement towards reigniting negotiations – but also “a fair amount of posturing”. He referenced Trump’s praise for Tuesday’s indirect Iran-US talks and his pugnacious UNGA speech the same day.

A breakthrough hinges on whether Iran’s diplomats in New York can actually deliver, he said.

“Araghchi and Pezeshkian can negotiate, but any deal will need the consent of the [Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps] and the hardliners in charge of the war back home,” Abdel Ghafar told Al Jazeera.

There are specific indicators to watch for another round of US-Iran contact, the analysts said.

“The signs to watch for are another confirmed round of US-Iran talks, agreement on sequencing or reciprocal steps, and language from both sides becoming more specific about implementation rather than simply repeating maximalist demands,” said Vakil.

Abdel Ghafar added that, against the backdrop of UNGA, signs could include Araghchi or Pezeshkian meeting directly with US officials, in addition to supportive statements from more hardline elements of the Iranian administration back home.

The appearance of such indicators could lead to a stronger push for such talks when Trump meets Xi, as well as an easing of fighting between the Iran-backed Houthi group and the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen, which has escalated in recent weeks, the analyst added.

The limits of Gulf and Chinese diplomacy

The analysts agreed that the Gulf states remain crucial in brokering a return to talks because they have channels to both warring sides, as well as a very strong interest in preventing further escalation, having absorbed the cost of the fighting since February. Qatar, Oman and other Gulf states have been involved in mediation efforts throughout the conflict.

“Qatar and Oman, in particular, can help translate broad political messages into workable arrangements on issues such as Hormuz and regional security,” said Vakil.

China, meanwhile, has less capacity or interest to mediate, she argued.

Beijing, however, could use its economic and political leverage with Tehran “to encourage compromise and give Iran greater confidence that any agreement will not leave it completely isolated”, said Vakil.

Abdel Ghafar pointed out that China remains Iran’s main customer for its oil, explaining why Beijing has pushed for a return to the June interim deal and the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz.

“Still, I think neither can impose a settlement – it ultimately comes down to Washington and Tehran,” he said.

Hostilities and Hormuz

The tit-for-tat rhetoric has resulted in continued deadlock in the conflict, with each side unwilling to relinquish to the other’s demands and appear to admit defeat.

On Tuesday, following Trump’s remarks on annihilating Iran, Iran’s military warned that it is ready to respond with “crushing” attacks more severe than earlier in the war.

“The main challenge is finding a formula that both governments can present domestically as a negotiated compromise rather than capitulation,” said Vakil.

The Strait of Hormuz remains a key obstacle.

“It’s Iran’s strongest card and the thing Washington most wants back, with oil prices high and midterms approaching,” said Abdel Ghafar.

“Tehran will be reluctant to give it up without firm guarantees in return.”

Still, he warned that even if Washington and Tehran de-escalate, that does not automatically extend to the Red Sea.

The wider landscape of regional instability and conflict has created new conditions for Yemen’s unresolved war to flare up once again. The Bab al-Mandeb, now under effective Houthi control, has gained greater significance amid Iran’s effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz, a vital artery for global oil and gas supplies.

“Calm in Hormuz won’t necessarily mean calm in Bab al-Mandab,” said Abdel Ghafar.

The Houthis are attempting to push into the Kahboub Mountains after seizing much of Yemen’s Red Sea coast in a lightning offensive this month – an advance that experts say could dramatically shift the balance of power in the country’s war if successful.

The renewed fighting in recent months with forces aligned with Yemen’s Saudi-backed, internationally recognised government has brought an end to the relative calm that had largely held since 2022. In recent days, the conflict has moved into the rugged highlands overlooking the approaches to Bab al-Mandeb, one of the world’s most important shipping routes.

The strait connects the Indian Ocean to the Red Sea and the Suez Canal, and its importance is only growing as shipping through the Strait of Hormuz remains disrupted by the Houthis’ main ally: Iran.

Experts said taking the high ground would help the Houthis defend the newly captured coastline and make it far harder for government forces to push them back. While the mountains may not necessarily be used as a launchpad for attacks on ships, controlling them would provide defensive depth and cover for Houthi positions closer to the coast, making missile and drone operations in the Red Sea easier to sustain and harder to disrupt.

The Houthis have said they do not intend to target United States shipping and attacks would be limited to vessels linked to Saudi Arabia. But the group has repeatedly attacked ships in the Red Sea in previous years, including vessels with no clear connection to its stated targets.

The Houthi advance has taken on added urgency after The New York Times reported that US President Donald Trump came close to ordering air attacks against the Houthis on Sunday, only to call them off at the last minute. Britain, meanwhile, said it will support Saudi Arabia with defensive refuelling.

Why is Kahboub strategically important?

Kahboub, a mountainous region spanning parts of the Lahj and Taiz governorates in southern Yemen, derives much of its strategic importance from its proximity to Bab al-Mandeb. Some of its heights lie about 40km (25 miles) from the waterway, providing commanding views across a stretch of the Red Sea, through which a significant share of global maritime trade and millions of barrels of oil pass each day.

While that vantage point has considerable military value, experts said the mountains are unlikely to serve directly as a launchpad for attacks in the Red Sea. Their more immediate importance for the Houthis lies in securing the territory the group has already captured.

“The mountains are the natural wall that protects the Houthis’ rear on the coast. Controlling them would cut the coast off from the government-held south and place direct pressure on Lahj and, in the longer term, Aden,” Faozi Al-Goidi, a visiting fellow at the Middle East Council on Global Affairs, told Al Jazeera.

Securing their rear would help the Houthis prevent government forces from attacking their coastal positions from behind or severing the routes connecting their newly captured territory. Until the high ground is secured, Houthi forces stationed along the Red Sea remain vulnerable to attacks from government-held areas to the south and east.

Capturing the elevated positions, therefore, would make Kahboub less important as a potential launchpad for maritime attacks than as a defensive shield for the Houthis’ military gains along the coast.

Ewa K Strzelecka, a visiting senior fellow at the London School of Economics, told Al Jazeera that controlling the coastline, Mayyun Island and the neighbouring highlands would give the Houthis “strategic resilience”.

“Holding the coastline, Mayyun and the adjacent highlands together would give the Houthis a much deeper and more defensible position around one of the world’s principal maritime chokepoints,” she said.

Those positions would allow the Houthis to move fighters, weapons and supplies along the coast with less risk of their routes being severed from behind.

“From the high ground, the Houthis could monitor movements along the coast, around Mayyun Island and towards the chokepoint while protecting missile, drone and potentially unmanned-boat infrastructure positioned farther inland,” Andreas Krieg, a senior lecturer at the School of Security Studies at King’s College London, told Al Jazeera.

The battle is already proving slower than the Houthis’ rapid advance across the coastal plains. Footage circulated on X by the Taiz Military Axis Command’s media centre appears to show intense fighting between forces aligned with the Yemeni government, local fighters and the Houthis on mountain fronts. The footage could not be independently verified by Al Jazeera.

“This is not an easy battle,” said Mohammed al-Basha, an analyst and a former spokesperson for Yemen’s embassy in Washington. “The fighting is taking place across some of Yemen’s most unforgiving terrain where control of a single hilltop or mountain peak can come at a heavy cost.”

Could the Houthis isolate Taiz by controlling Kahboub?

Control of Kahboub could also place greater pressure on Taiz, a symbolically and strategically important city, as the Taiz governorate forms a bridge between the Houthi-held north and the government-held south and the Red Sea coast. Whoever controls it gains the upper hand in the movement of weapons and supplies between the interior and the southern port city of Aden. Losing it, therefore, could deal a serious blow to the government.

Murad Al-Arefi, an editor at the Sana’a Center, told Al Jazeera that taking Kahboub would “increase pressure on the southern and western approaches to Taiz” although he cautioned that it should not yet be seen as evidence of a broader attempt to encircle the city.

The immediate threat to the Taiz-Aden connection is less direct because Kahboub does not itself sit across the route.  “What matters is whether the Houthis can subsequently push farther east through Al-Wazi’iyah and towards the Al-Turbah-Lahj axis, which would place much greater pressure on the southern approaches to Taiz and potentially weaken its connection with Aden,” Strzelecka said.

A further advance, therefore, could leave government forces defending several mountain fronts simultaneously while relying on fewer secure routes to move troops, weapons and supplies, leaving Taiz increasingly exposed. One of Yemen’s largest population centres, Taiz became an important centre of resistance to the Houthis after they seized Sanaa in 2014, and was besieged by the rebel group for years. A major Houthi breakthrough there, therefore, would carry symbolic significance far beyond the territory captured.

What could it mean for Red Sea shipping?

Officially, the Houthis have said their current restrictions in Bab al-Mandeb would apply only to Saudi-linked shipping.

But during its previous Red Sea campaign, the group struck or endangered ships with no clear connection to Israel – their purported target during Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza – raising questions about how narrowly any new restrictions would be applied. Seizing the Kahboub Mountains would further strengthen the Houthis’ position by helping them secure the coastline overlooking Bab al-Mandeb and making it harder for their opponents to push them back.

Simon Mabon, a professor of international relations at Lancaster University, told Al Jazeera that the offensive showed the Houthis using their momentum to capture more territory, weaken their opponents and “dominate Yemen further”.

“This is the Houthis trying to seize more ground and diminish the capacity of their enemies while increasing their strategic ability to close Bab al-Mandeb,” Mabon said.

Repeated blasts at military sites expose the risks facing Syria as it rebuilds its army and consolidates weapons after years of war.

A series of explosions at weapons and ammunition sites across Syria this month have exposed the difficulties facing the country’s military in storing and moving munitions, as the armed forces rebuild after more than a decade of war.

The latest blasts injured at least four people in the early hours of Monday morning at an arms depot in al-Eis, south of Aleppo.

On Friday, a blast in Ayyash, west of Deir Az Zor, killed 11 soldiers. Another on September 9 killed 14 defence ministry personnel in Sarmada, Idlib. Also in Idlib, five people were killed when a vehicle carrying ammunition exploded in the town of Binnish on September 1 .

According to a tally by the Reuters news agency, at least 16 similar explosions have hit arms storage facilities since the fall of long-time President Bashar al-Assad in December 2024 after an opposition offensive.

Some have been attributed to poor storage conditions. The Syrian Defence Ministry said it is investigating the causes behind the recurrent explosions to prevent future incidents.

Long-time neglect

Security analysts are divided on the root causes, with some pointing to a lack of professional infrastructure and others highlighting the potential for foreign interference – although there is as yet no hard evidence for that.

Omer Ozkizilcik, a nonresident senior fellow for the Syria Project in the Atlantic Council’s Middle East Programmes, explained to Al Jazeera that the Syrian military is undergoing a period of huge change. It is reorganising from what it was under al-Assad, consolidating weapons from different sources and integrating various forces. All of that could be putting pressure on Syria’s storage infrastructure, which was already creaking after the long war and international isolation.

“The explosions could have happened due to neglect, Ozkizilcik said. “The Syrian army is receiving much more military aid than ever before. It gained control over the stockpiles of the former regime and the formerly US-backed [Syrian Democratic Forces]. The increase in quantity coupled with the need to protect weapons from potential Israeli airstrikes may have pushed the Syrian army to store weapons in inadequate places.”

Ozkizilcik emphasised that Syria’s military is still in a transitional phase. The former army was dissolved after the fall of the al-Assad regime and fighters from armed opposition groups were integrated into a new military structure. Damascus has also been working to integrate territory and forces previously controlled by the Kurdish-led SDF.

“The Syrian army has yet to become a professional army,” Ozkizilcik added. “These explosions are not the first that happen in Syria. Before the fall of al-Assad, similar things happened many times in Syria. [but] I don’t think these explosions will affect Syria’s military capabilities in any visible way. It’s merely a loss of some stockpiles that can be replenished.”

Weapons and ammunition, by their nature, need to be handled extremely carefully and stored properly. Storing large quantities of ageing ammunition for years in poor conditions, such as high temperatures or humidity, can accelerate their deterioration and lead to them becoming unstable.

“The current warehouse infrastructure suffers from severe ageing; most of it dates back decades and does not meet international safe storage standards,” said security expert Ismat al-Absi. “Storing ageing munitions in open or semi-closed environments without controlled cooling and humidity systems creates what we call a thermal runaway chain reaction.”

Possibility of sabotage

The repeated explosions have led to some fears of sabotage, particularly in light of repeated Israeli attacks against Syria since the fall of al-Assad, many of which have targeted the military, including the August strikes on the Abu al-Duhur airbase in Idlib.

Ozkizilcik noted that there was “no public information about possible sabotage” being behind the weapons depot explosions, and no evidence of any direct Israeli links. But the repeated explosions, coupled with Israel’s attacks in Syria and past intelligence operations against groups like Lebanon’s Hezbollah, mean it cannot be totally ruled out.

“Considering that the Israeli media recently wrote about the growing military capabilities of Syria, suspicions grow,” he said.

Al-Absi told Al Jazeera that the wide geographic scope of the explosions nevertheless meant that deliberate interference should be investigated.

“The main loopholes that [could have allowed sabotage operations] are the absence of smart surveillance, relying on traditional human guarding instead of remote sensors and thermal movement detection; weak securing of transport lines and administrative fragmentation,” al-Absi said. “The weakness of security discipline during the restructuring phase of the military institution has made some sites vulnerable to penetration or internal manipulation.”

Tehran, Iran – Amid dire fuel shortages and mounting economic challenges, the Iranian government is seeking cost-saving measures for government workers and other citizens to deal with the crisis.

On Saturday, the government set office attendance hours for 8am to 1pm from September 23 to the end of the current Iranian year (late March 2027), with the remaining contractual hours to be completed remotely.

Agencies must also designate one day a week when employees and managers travel to work by public transport. In recent days, government ministers have released videos showing themselves using the metro to commute to work as part of the campaign.

Metro and bus rapid transit (BRT) systems will also be free of charge until mid-November in a bid to encourage commuters to leave their cars at home. Worn-out government vehicles will also be replaced with electric, gas-powered or hybrid alternatives, although this is expected to take years to implement.

The reopening of universities is expected to be staggered and partial, with some lessons shifted online by authorities.

Government-linked offices are required to switch off heating and turn off lights after working hours, while schools, universities, healthcare facilities and operational services are to follow separate arrangements to be announced later.

President Masoud Pezeshkian signed a directive on September 12 instructing government agencies to facilitate remote work for suitable employees to save on petrol, electricity and natural gas costs for the state.

“We have begun consumption savings with the government,” Pezeshkian said earlier this month. This is seen as effectively framing remote work and other measures for government workers as in line with other energy-saving measures that the government has asked of the rest of the population.

Resource-rich Iran has dealt with energy crises before, rooted in mismanagement and dated infrastructure, when similar cost-saving measures were implemented. But the added pressure of war with the United States and Israel has forced the government to think of creative solutions to energy shortfalls.

In early September, the cash-strapped government raised the price of fuel for the third tier of quotas for a second time in less than a year, meaning that people will pay double for any petrol use beyond 110 litres (29 gallons) per month. Imported vehicles and some other categories of cars are also limited to the most expensive tier of fuel.

For the first five months of the current Iranian year, which ended on August 22, average daily petrol production was 122 million litres while consumption was at 132 milion litres, highlighting a shortfall in supply versus demand. In the first half of the sixth month, the gap between production and consumption was around the same, at a 10 million litre shortfall.

The US naval blockade of Iran’s southern ports in place since July has halted fuel imports that previously helped balance the gap. The blockade has also stopped Iran from exporting its oil via supertankers transiting the Strait of Hormuz, affecting its foreign currency income. Crude stored on open waters beyond the blockade line is still being gradually sold to China.

Oil and gas facilities, petrochemical companies and major fuel depots were also bombed by the US and Israel, impacting production and distribution. Oil Minister Mohsen Paknejad said in early September that “a significant portion of production capacity has now been restored, and the process is continuing”.

As rampant inflation continues to squeeze most Iranians, data released this week by the Statistical Center of Iran also highlighted the damage the war with the US has dealt to the economy.

Iran experienced a massive 10.1 percent year-on-year fall in real gross domestic product (GDP) and a 26.4 percent fall in oil and gas extraction between late March and late June 2026, the centre’s data showed.

Including oil, industries and mining were down 14.7 percent, while construction was down by 6.4 percent, services overall by 4.8 percent, and transport, storage and communications by 17 percent.

The government has not released any information on how many workers are estimated to be affected by the remote work directive, or how it expected efficiency to be impacted.

But after decades of mismanagement, corruption and inefficiency among government-linked organisations, some Iranians believe it highlights a wider issue of state inefficiency.

“My unpopular opinion is that if 85-90 percent of government sector personnel are fired and 70 percent of ministries closed down, absolutely no problem will occur in the country,” a user named Mohsen wrote on X.

Zabihollah Salmani, a deputy head of the Administrative and Employment Organisation of Iran, told reporters during a press conference in August that more than 2.43 million were on its payroll.

If council, fire brigades, social security and non-government organisation workers were included, this would bring the number to more than four million people. The average monthly pay for government personnel at the end of the previous Iranian year in late March 2026 was around 240 million rials ($104 at the current exchange rate).

Asked by reporters how many of these employees could potentially be taken off the payroll without hurting output, Salmani said, “We do not yet have these figures.” He added that agencies were being asked to submit that information.

About 1,075,000 people are on the payroll of the Education Ministry, including teachers and trainee staff, while 600,000 employees work under the Ministry of Health and its affiliated networks, according to official figures.

Amir-Hossein, a young man working at a research centre linked with the government-funded University of Tehran, said that since the start of the month, he had been assigned two days of remote work. Working hours were set for 7am-1pm before, but are to be shifted to 8am-1pm starting from Wednesday, per the government.

His work can be done on his laptop, but might require some coordination on the phone or short commutes to other centres, he said. Overall, the remote work lifestyle has been beneficial.

“Sometimes I get more work done than I would have at the office,” he told Al Jazeera, asking not to use his full name due to security reasons.

As Amir-Hossein regularly uses online ride-hailing services to commute to and from his job, working from home has been financially beneficial for him.

An Iran-based economist who spoke to Al Jazeera on background said the government measures are essentially crisis control at best, and not a long-term solution to the problem.